Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[robtulipe]

Here a shot I took from the starboard side bridge wing on Freedom and there appear to be a surveillance camera at the upper right corner 

[brillohead]

19 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

The challenge is accepted. Please excuse the crudity of it as I did not want to spend too much time on it but please bear in mind this is just an example. In the final photo I have allowed for a squashed gut against the guard rail to compress. Mind you these are just examples based on the actual size of this particular mans body in the photo whose height is unknown.

 

 

 

Many thanks, @Brisbane41.  

Even just this photo shows plenty, IMO.... 

With Anello's shoulders bent over the railing (as is evident from watching the videos from both angles), THERE IS NO SPACE FOR THE BABY between his head and the window glass.  

I could maybe almost (not really, but I'm trying to be generous) give Anello the benefit of the doubt if all he really did was set Chloe on the railing (with her butt actually sitting on the wood, not standing on it), and she lurched forward unexpectedly.  I think anyone who has ever held a child knows that they can do this, and it can be hard to recover from -- you may have to take a few steps or lower your arms to "catch" them in order to regain stability.   

(Again, having stood at those windows in all temperatures and all lighting conditions, I really can't believe he couldn't have known without a doubt that the window was open... but I'm trying to be generous here, so work with me on this hypothetical situation, please!)

 

But looking at the photo I quoted above... and knowing without a doubt (from watching the videos from both directions) that he LEANED OVER THE RAILING to the extent that his shoulders were lowered from their normal height.... it's dead obvious that not only was Chloe not on the railing, she was SIGNIFICANTLY beyond the railing to the point where if the window had been closed, she would have been completely smooshed up against it. 

And, as logic would follow, if she was already smooshed up against the window, there would have been no reason (as Anello has claimed) for her to "lean forward to bang on the glass" and he lost his grip and she was gone.  

Here's an even cruder "PhotoShop" (I obviously don't have imaging software!) recreation, going off the recreated photo of "Anello leaning forward".... where would the baby have to be?  Yep, on the window sill / out the window.  

THIS is what everyone who has ever stood at the pool deck windows of any Royal ship knows... there simply isn't room for him to bend over the railing AND hold the baby without some part of her body extending past the window to some extent. 

I personally believe that, at the very least, he had her standing on the window sill -- which would also explain why he could hold her with only one hand, if he wasn't supporting all her weight himself.  It also explains why, if he was holding her with just one hand, it would be so easy to lose his grip on her if she wriggled at all.   This hypothesis also fits in with how high up he lifts her in the video -- up high (she goes higher than his head) and over and past the railing, to put her feet on the window sill itself. 

I sincerely hope that any juror in the criminal OR civil case is allowed to personally inspect the pool deck windows on a Royal Caribbean ship.  In the case of the parents' civil case against Royal, I would like to see an in-person inspection by the judge who is making the decision about whether to dismiss the case before it even goes to court.  You can submit video surveillance and re-enactment photos all you want, but simply standing at that railing holding a Chloe-sized doll should be all the info the judge would need to toss that case before it even hits the courtroom.  

Edited February 2, 2020 by brillohead
typo

[S.A.M.J.R.]

1 hour ago, robtulipe said:

Here a shot I took from the starboard side bridge wing on Freedom and there appear to be a surveillance camera at the upper right corner 

 

Assuming the security camera footage is similar, it's not going to help.  Wasn't the window on the port side of the pool deck, pretty much aft (not all the way, but just the area where the pool is).  There just won't be detail to see what happened before the fall.

 

[Brisbane41]

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

It is interesting that the lawsuit states:
 

"An inspection of the scene after the subject incident revealed that all the glass panes around the single open pane of glass were closed and that this was the only single pane, among dozens of panes, that was slid completely open."

However, when I viewed the clip from the pool area looking toward the windows as he walks toward the window, it appears that another window to the right is also open.  I could be wrong, but it sure looks like it. Not that it really matters.  Maybe the other one wasn't "completely" open and that's why the attorney included the word.

Perhaps all the windows were closed afterwards to keep people from looking out the window and the one in question open to preserve what may be treated as a crime scene. If you also notice in the reports the cruise line went to the extent of separating this man from the girls immediate family and were not letting them near each other. It is also reported that they had to get him away from other passengers. The mother was given a sedative and consented to it while the step grandfather refused a sedative.

 

So their attorney is probably making a lot of things up as he goes along and people are thinking what they say are actual events. We may never know until this gets to court unless it is dismissed what really happened.

 

It has probably cost Royal Caribbean already. There may be passengers traumatised by witnessing this who may have already received acts of grace payments or support or some other benefit. We don't know but by the stance Royal Caribbean is taking it would seem they are confident of success as they are refusing to settle and are pushing forward no matter what it does to their reputation.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

4 minutes ago, brillohead said:

I sincerely hope that any juror in the criminal OR civil case is allowed to personally inspect the pool deck windows on a Royal Caribbean ship.  In the case of the parents' civil case against Royal, I would like to see an in-person inspection by the judge who is making the decision about whether to dismiss the case before it even goes to court.  You can submit video surveillance and re-enactment photos all you want, but simply standing at that railing holding a Chloe-sized doll should be all the info the judge would need to toss that case before it even hits the courtroom.  

Hey lawyer folks... is there precedent for this?  For a jury (or judge) to visit the scene?

 

I would have liked to see how much effort the lawyer put into reenacting the incident.  First, on paper, the idea that the angle of the security cameras doesn't show the true story sounds good.  So, put one camera (high definition) at the same point (or as close as you can) to the "side shot" security video.  Then put a second camera (again, HD) shooting "down the rail".  Sync the two cameras together, and recreate him walking up to the window and leaning over.  The idea is the first camera pretty much should match RCI's camera, while the second one would show the other angle.  If you REALLY want to get fancy, put the same movement (like a clock that shows seconds & frames) somewhere in view of both cameras so those who watch later know they're truly recording at the same time.  

[Two Wheels Only]

4 minutes ago, Brisbane41 said:

Perhaps all the windows were closed afterwards to keep people from looking out the window and the one in question open to preserve what may be treated as a crime scene.

 

When the fall happened, more than one window was open. At some point, windows were closed...

 

 

 

 

 

[cruisinmeme]

Goodness i just watched a few of the videos.  His head and shoulders certainly disappeared somewhere. How can this family think they have a case here. If i watched that and it was my child i dread to think how i would feel towards grandpa. 

I also have been going nuts calling this a children’s play area. Hello look around.

we have probably all done some stupid careless stuff and all lived to talk about it, but this takes the prize for stupid.

[mayleeman]

@S.A.M.J.R. Jurors have been able to visit crime scenes on request when appropriate, under guidelines established by the court based on protocols submitted by both sides. 

 

No judge contemplating a motion to dismiss will ever visit a crime scene. That would constitute developing evidence, and motions to dismiss can only be granted if all the documentary evidence submitted before trial would allow only judgment for the moving party (i.e., no genuine issue of fact remaining, and no credibility determinations requiring assessment of witness testimony).

 

[Brisbane41]

14 hours ago, boscobeans said:

Been on that ship and many others many times. I am 5 foot 10 inches tall and have NO TROUBLE looking out to the sides and down from the clearly open windows on the pool decks on any of the dozens of ships we have sailed over the last 20+ years.

 

I have watched pier runners, fuel bunkering, pilots getting on and off and dozens of other events out of those windows.

The attached photo is from a video shot on the FREEDOM OTS along the bank of windows where the homicide took place.

Notice the woman looking out the window to the right..

Does she look like a giant?

Does it look like she can't tell the window was open?

Does ot look like she would have the slightest bit of trouble poking her head and even part of her shoulders to the outside of the window frame?? 

 

The lawyer should be disbarred  and forced to pay all court costs and legal fees encountered by RCCL.

Yes the windows look very safe and it is clear that they are there. The whole area is probably more like a semi enclosed balcony. It is certainly not an interior room. 

 

Whether the window being open or not is irrelevant. Simply putting a toddler on the frames there is dangerous enough and could be fatal if the child were to fall back and smash their head on the guard rail.

 

There are 3 rules when it comes to going overboard from a ship and they only way it can happen is either 1.) murder, 2.) suicide and 3.) skylarking/deliberate/reckless acts of behaviour.

 

With that in mind if we focus on the third rule there is no amount of safety measures that can be enacted to prevent this sort of thing. If someone is going to do something stupid then no matter what safety precautions are in place they will always hurt themselves.

 

This is entirely the grandfathers fault for failing to take due care and consideration of his surroundings, failing to pay attention to the area and environment he was in, failing to be on the lookout for dangers to a child, breaking the contract and rules set out by the cruise line, acting in and encouraging anti-social/disruptive behaviour (namely banging on glass), did he not think that this sort of behaviour would be disruptive, intrusive and annoying to the people sitting peacefully by the bar and on the surrounding tables? 

 

Also what sort of man puts a child up to a glass window assuming it will hold their weight. Even if it was glass did he bother to check that it was not cracked, broken or in a state that it might collapse if any weight was put on it, did he reach out his hand to feel where it was and if he could retrieve the toddler had it been too far away. The fact that there was a guard rail there also did not dissuade this man from lifting the child over it and onto a window frame. Surely common sense would have told him the window was open when he looked down and saw the dock.

 

The girl is dead because of adult human intervention. There is no way that child would have gone out the window had it not been for an alleged fully functioning and sane adult picking her up and placing her in a position of danger without first investigating what he was doing.

 

Would a reasonable adult in a normal frame of mind walk up to a glass wall in a tower/lookout/skyscraper and lean on it without first assessing for danger? We have all travelled and have probably been up skyscrapers in our lives.

 

I cannot think of any way that Royal Caribbean is responsible or could have prevented it. To say there should be no windows that open on a ship would be the same as abolishing all balconies and making the guard rails as tall as a prison wall. Even then not having access to the outside of a ship could be against SOLAS regulations. There needs to be points to exit a sinking ship or a ship on fire or the ability to take to the water if the situation is that dire. Closing the ship entirely off is probably out of the question and unlawful.

[robtulipe]

5 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

 

Assuming the security camera footage is similar, it's not going to help.  Wasn't the window on the port side of the pool deck, pretty much aft (not all the way, but just the area where the pool is).  There just won't be detail to see what happened before the fall.

 

I suspect the port bridge wing also has a similar video camera. I recall when doing bridge tours on Anthem and seeing similar cameras with both bow and aft views on the port side bridge wing which we visited on those tours.

Location where this occurred was beside pool bar which is forward mid-ship. Windjammer cafe is aft on deck 11 on that class of ship.

[momofmab]

18 hours ago, boscobeans said:

 

You use the words "common sense" this is a ship with thousands of feet of railings, windows verandas and such that are well above child's height. Do you propose it to be common sense to close all of these areas off so there is less than 5 inches of access to the ocean or surroundings on a cruise???? Sounds like the meal slot in a prison door.

 

Do you have any safety regulations with regard to railings in busy public places like shopping malls that open to floors or levels below?

 

This picture brings to mind the case a year or so ago where that crazy man threw a child he didn't even know over the railing at the Mall of America (thankfully the child survived and the guy got 19 years).  I wonder if the parents of the child sued the mall over the railings?  I googled, but nothing came up.  No contract to read or box to check when you go into a mall public office building with multiple floors & railings.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

3 hours ago, robtulipe said:

I suspect the port bridge wing also has a similar video camera. I recall when doing bridge tours on Anthem and seeing similar cameras with both bow and aft views on the port side bridge wing which we visited on those tours.

Location where this occurred was beside pool bar which is forward mid-ship. Windjammer cafe is aft on deck 11 on that class of ship.

Are you sure?  I thought the "bar" seen in the videos was Squeeze, which is on the port side of the ship, just forward of the WJ entrance (therefore aft on the pool deck).  

In the picture you posted, you can even see where the whirlpool is located on that side.  There's no way that security camera (or the one on the port side) is going to have any detailed view of what happened. 

[rusty nut]

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Are you sure?  I thought the "bar" seen in the videos was Squeeze, which is on the port side of the ship, just forward of the WJ entrance (therefore aft on the pool deck).  

In the picture you posted, you can even see where the whirlpool is located on that side.  There's no way that security camera (or the one on the port side) is going to have any detailed view of what happened. 

I don't agree at all. Chloe fell (was dropped) on the starboard side of the ship, just forward of the deck 11 whirlpool, as seen in many, many photos. I don't know why everybody keeps mentioning the Squeeze Bar just because it's on the same deck. It was nowhere near the Squeeze Bar.

The picture of the bridge camera above, in my opinion, would have captured the fall.

 

 

 

 

[akcruz]

36 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

I don't agree at all. Chloe fell (was dropped) on the starboard side of the ship, just forward of the deck 11 whirlpool, as seen in many, many photos. I don't know why everybody keeps mentioning the Squeeze Bar just because it's on the same deck. It was nowhere near the Squeeze Bar.

The picture of the bridge camera above, in my opinion, would have captured the fall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What!!!  I do hope your are joking with this comment.  Go back to any picture or the video.  They were at the H2O zone and walked thru the tables in front of the squeeze bar to the windows.   Where you have this happening is in the Solarium where she woukdnt even be allowed since she is under 16.  This is about the only thing all can agree about, until your post. 

[S.A.M.J.R.]

55 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

I don't agree at all. Chloe fell (was dropped) on the starboard side of the ship, just forward of the deck 11 whirlpool, as seen in many, many photos. I don't know why everybody keeps mentioning the Squeeze Bar just because it's on the same deck. It was nowhere near the Squeeze Bar.

The picture of the bridge camera above, in my opinion, would have captured the fall.

 

 

 

 

So what's the bar in the picture? As PP said, you've got them at the entrance to the Solarium. 

[Two Wheels Only]

34 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

I don't know why everybody keeps mentioning the Squeeze Bar just because it's on the same deck. It was nowhere near the Squeeze Bar.

 

 

 

 

 

[rusty nut]

23 minutes ago, akcruz said:

 

 

What!!!  I do hope your are joking with this comment.  Go back to any picture or the video.  They were at the H2O zone and walked thru the tables in front of the squeeze bar to the windows.   Where you have this happening is in the Solarium where she woukdnt even be allowed since she is under 16.  This is about the only thing all can agree about, until your post. 

@akcruz, I stand corrected. You are right! After going back and seeing the video, it does appear that this took place near the Squeeze Bar. It's just that for months, I've been seeing this picture. I guess the media botched that one, huh?

[Two Wheels Only]

Just now, rusty nut said:

I guess the media botched that one, huh?

 

The media has used any stock "cruise ship" photo that they can find.

I've seen ships docked in Miami used in articles. 

I've seen Harmony OTS used in articles.

I've seen a Carnival ship used in an article. 

[jagsfan]

14 hours ago, gatour said:

There is a difference between a beach.  The chairs on the beach give the lifeguards height to look over waves along with looking longer distance to the right and left of the life guard stand.

 

With pools and their vertical sides  a chair could create a blind spot at the bottom of the pool next to the side.  By positioning the life guard close to the side, the blind spot goes away.

 

Also the lifeguards are rotated, so they are not standing hours and hours.

Years ago I was standing next to the lifeguard’s chair calling my kids to tell them it was lunch time. I glanced down and there was a child lying underwater. The lifeguard would have had to stand up and look straight down to see him. 

I jumped in with floppy hat, sandals and purse and grabbed Billy, held him over my head and shook him. Got a gallon of water in my face but he started crying. Not exactly the right procedure but I reacted because I couldn’t think. 

His mother came out of the restroom and yelled at me for making him cry. She left him sitting on the steps and was only gone a few minutes. 

I was ready to cry myself because it was pure luck that I looked straight down at him. 

A lifeguard chair didn’t help in that instance. 

Even if our lifeguards were walking back and forth, they tended to look out over the pool, not straight down. It only takes a few seconds for a child to drown and they don’t make any noise, not even a splash. 

It all boils down to parents have got to watch their kids. 

[mayleeman]

37 minutes ago, jagsfan said:

His mother came out of the restroom and yelled at me for making him cry.

 

I hope someone set her straight. Good thinking despite your claim you weren't!!!

[TNcruising02]

Maybe anyone taking a young child on a cruise ship needs to sign something at check-in where they agree to watch their child at all times when not in the kid's club.  Leaving a child unattended anywhere on a cruise ship is crazy.  I wouldn't even have left my toddler in the care of someone like that step-grandfather because toddlers can take off at any minute and they are fast.

My sister came home one night after leaving her two year old in the care of a babysitter at her apartment.  She arrived to find the paramedics reviving him.  I never left my young children in anyone's care around water or any public area.  They were also taught to swim by age three.  Anyway, jagsfan, what you did was incredible! Bless you for saving that child's life.

[jagsfan]

I can tell you I shook for hours afterward. 

The mother was known for having about of control temper, but she didn’t scare me because the whole thing scared me. 

 

[Two Wheels Only]

37 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

Maybe anyone taking a young child on a cruise ship needs to sign something at check-in where they agree to watch their child at all times when not in the kid's club.

 

Something like Section 8 of the Cruise Ticket Contract?....

 

8. PASSENGER'S OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH AGREEMENT, APPLICABLE LAWS, AND RULES OF CARRIER; QUARANTINE; INDEMNIFICATION:...

 

...d. Each adult Passenger undertakes and agrees to supervise at all times any accompanying minors to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Section 8.

 

...f. Passenger, or if a minor, his parent or guardian, shall be liable for and indemnify Carrier, the Vessel and the Transport from any civil liability, fines, penalties, costs or expenses incurred by or imposed on the Vessel, the Transport or Carrier arising from or related to Passenger's conduct or failure to comply with any provisions of this Section 8, including but not limited to: (i) any purchases by or credit extended to the Passenger; (ii) requirements relating to immigration, customs or excise; or (iii) any personal injury, death or damage to persons or property caused directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by any willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the Passenger

 

 

 

 

[TNcruising02]

3 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

Something like Section 8 of the Cruise Ticket Contract?....

 

8. PASSENGER'S OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH AGREEMENT, APPLICABLE LAWS, AND RULES OF CARRIER; QUARANTINE; INDEMNIFICATION:...

 

...d. Each adult Passenger undertakes and agrees to supervise at all times any accompanying minors to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Section 8.

 

...f. Passenger, or if a minor, his parent or guardian, shall be liable for and indemnify Carrier, the Vessel and the Transport from any civil liability, fines, penalties, costs or expenses incurred by or imposed on the Vessel, the Transport or Carrier arising from or related to Passenger's conduct or failure to comply with any provisions of this Section 8, including but not limited to: (i) any purchases by or credit extended to the Passenger; (ii) requirements relating to immigration, customs or excise; or (iii) any personal injury, death or damage to persons or property caused directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by any willful or negligent act or omission on the part of the Passenger

 

 

 

 

Yes, just like what they agreed to during the on-line check-in so that people like the grandfather can't claim they never received it.  Have them physically sign it when they enter the cruise ship.

[TNcruising02]

When looking up this lawsuit, I noticed that cruise ships actually get sued a lot.